4 ms·

The article quotes studies claiming that people who grow up with conflict in their personal lives are more likely to be comfortable with differing opinions and

by _dps 9y ago

The article quotes studies claiming that people who grow up with conflict in their personal lives are more likely to be comfortable with differing opinions and certain forms of creative debate. Since there's seemingly some benefit of exposure to these kinds of negative experiences, they mention advice on how to mitigate the negative aspect of conflict. But I think it's actually great advice to teach children/students these civil, but pseudo-adversarial skills as general purpose cooperative reasoning tools completely independent of conflict-management. From the article: • Frame it as a debate, rather than a conflict. • Argue as if you’re right but listen as if you’re wrong. • Make the most respectful interpretation of the other person’s perspective. • Acknowledge where you agree with your critics and what you’ve learned from them. These behaviors correlate very strongly with the people I personally have found most intelligent and productive in group settings.

iovrthoughtthis 9y ago
This is fantastic advise for effective debate. I would add: * agree on the meaning of the words you use. * be upfront about how willing you are to be wrong / change your mind (I phrase this as "what would have to be true for you to accept I am right" and vice versa for my beliefs).
- _dps 9y ago
  I really like the part about agreeing on words, and I'd riff on a bit more with two sub-patterns i've found useful 1) "I see when you say X you mean [specific definition]. Given that definition I agree with you, but I disagree with the definition" 2) "When I say X it seems it means [specific definition] to you. Rather than fight over the definition I will avoid saying X and use different terms so we can keep moving"
  - thomastjeffery 9y ago
    This is a really problem with some specific topics like copyright, where the terms were invented for propaganda. We really need a better word than "piracy".
- mistermann 9y ago
  > be upfront about how willing you are to be wrong / change your mind (I phrase this as "what would have to be true for you to accept I am right" and vice versa for my beliefs). This would often be a highly productive way to start the discussion, because very often the situation is that one side or the other is vehemently not willing to have their mind changed, which I'd argue is the case with most arguments you'll see on Facebook or Reddit.
- woodandsteel 9y ago
  * agree on the meaning of the words you use. Agreed, this is very important. One way to handle it when the two of you have different meanings for a word is to keep using the word, but add a different qualifier in front for each meaning, i.e. logical proof versus empirical proof.
Mithaldu 9y ago
> debate The last time i had a conversation with an american trained in "debate", it was quickly obvious that reality and truth were the last thing on his mind, but scoring rethoric points was the first. The rest of your points are good, but i think if you start it out with the word debate, many americans are going to mentally short-circuit to that style of conflict, instead of "respectful conversation".
- _dps 9y ago
  I haven't found any nationality to have exclusive rights to turning civil debate into a partisan shouting match. But I agree that some people do have that tendency. Still, such people seem even less likely to be productive if they approach the situation as open conflict — hence the advice to reframe conflict as debate, not to insert debate where it is otherwise unnecessary.
  - Mithaldu 9y ago
    > nationality I mention it specifically because, in all the nationalities i have talked to, i.e. in my personal experience, the USA is the only one to have a high school debate club culture that's widely spread.
    - _dps 9y ago
      At a minimum, I personally know of active school/university debate societies in the United Kingdom and Australia. And while it sounds like you've had some bad experiences, my personal sense is that the majority of people with formal debate experience are actually better, on average, at staying within the bounds of civil discourse. Having said that, there is indeed an overly aggressive subset of the population that is, as I think you're suggesting, attracted to debate for all the wrong reasons. But based on the literally hundreds I've met, I'd say as a population they are on average more civil and more likely to follow norms of "fair argument". They are much more likely to aspire to be erudite policy wonks than to be angry talk show pundits. YMMV obviously.
      - 9y ago
fallous 9y ago
Note that being comfortable with differing opinions and being comfortable with certain forms of creative debate are two different things. A debate should be a voluntary contest between parties and is only possible if they both share and agree upon a base set of principles as the foundation for the debate. If an atheist and a theist "debate" the existence of God(s) it isn't a resolvable argument since their divergence of principles is at a fundamental level and the only thing they share are certain derived points that accidentally coincide. In this case the parties must either be comfortable with the fact that they differ in opinions or they are not. This does beg the question as to when one should be comfortable with a differing opinion. I suspect that those who have encountered real conflict having a larger comfort area for differences due to their understanding that conflict invites real costs. In the case where legitimate debate can occur, the rules I usually try and follow/enforce are: 1. Establish the goal all parties wish to achieve (i.e., define success). 2. Establish the point at where our agreement on methods diverged. 3. All ideas should be orphans in that they have no privileges purely due to parentage. 4. Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence or ignorance. 5. Be ruthlessly honest about your own position, to include disclosing the weaknesses you know or suspect as well as disclosing the strengths of the opposing position (especially if the parties holding that position do not know it or present it themselves). Personally I become uncomfortable when there is unanimous agreement on positions I know to be legitimately debatable, even if I hold that position. In those instances I will promptly switch sides and argue against my own position to insure it has been properly vetted. In my experience the point that most reliably invites emotional response is failure of #3 since it's hard to move from "my idea" to "the idea." The most insidious failure is at #1 due to either misunderstanding or dishonesty since it corrupts the entire effort but can be very difficult to discover.
- andromeduck 9y ago
  Debate isn't always about changing the opinion of the person you're debating with. You can debate to win the audience.
  - DoreenMichele 9y ago
    The best debates aren't about winning at all. They are about getting at the truth and broadening your understanding of a topic by exposing yourself to different points of view which can cast light on personal blind spots or holes in your knowledge.
bayonetz 9y ago
Good points though the term debate has become a dirty word to me. I frame it as preferring "dialogue" over "debate" where dialogue refers the kind of exchange you laid out and debate is more of a conflict or competition where the aim is to win rather than advance truth. That's why it's so important to be transparent about your goals and values in an exchange. It's frustrating to let your guard down for a dialogue and find out via blindside that the asshole on the other side of the table only knows how to debate.
- _dps 9y ago
  If you're just talking about how one word or another primes people's behavior I have no quibble; in fact I may even support such a substitution in some cases. But I think you are too harsh on the idea of winning as inherently bad. If you are a saint and your opponent is a nazi, you fundamentally disagree on what the truth is. The way you advance truth is by winning (i.e. persuading an audience, or perhaps even your opponent, that your views are correct). I agree that in general it's best to avoid zero-sum framing. But some ideas are simply incompatible with other ideas, and in those cases the pursuit of truth is inextricably tied to winning a contest.
  - bayonetz 9y ago
    In my experience, there isn't a whole lot of "winning" in scenarios of fundamental disagreement. Sides just dig in and entrench. Not much to be done there I think. My debate vs dialogue distinction is more about the priming of behavior, as you call it, in the more common scenarios that are well short of fundamental disagreement -- scenarios at risk of turning in to a contest instead of maintaining the spirit of a mutual truth expedition.
    - iovrthoughtthis 9y ago
      "Winning" is hardly ever productive.
- nine_k 9y ago
  The problem is that a "debate" where winning is the aim and truth is not are pretty common. Certain exposure to them, understanding their basic mechanics, and the skill of telling them from a truth-seeking "dialog", would be valuable for kids. It's important for the same reason why understanding cognitive biases is important.
davesque 9y ago
"Argue as if you're right but listen as if you're wrong." How about arguing and listening as if you know exactly as much as you do and nothing more? It's not hard to imagine a case in which both arguing "as if you're right" and listening "as if you're wrong" would be inappropriate or down right foolish.
woodandsteel 9y ago
>• Argue as if you’re right but listen as if you’re wrong. On the listening side, something that often helps is what is often called active listening. This is where you say back to the person what you think they are saying, and they agree you got it right or correct it until you do. It is amazing how this can often lower the emotional level and make the disagreement more productive.

by _dps 9y ago

iovrthoughtthis 9y ago

This is fantastic advise for effective debate. I would add: * agree on the meaning of the words you use. * be upfront about how willing you are to be wrong / change your mind (I phrase this as "what would have to be true for you to accept I am right" and vice versa for my beliefs).

_dps 9y ago
I really like the part about agreeing on words, and I'd riff on a bit more with two sub-patterns i've found useful 1) "I see when you say X you mean [specific definition]. Given that definition I agree with you, but I disagree with the definition" 2) "When I say X it seems it means [specific definition] to you. Rather than fight over the definition I will avoid saying X and use different terms so we can keep moving"
- thomastjeffery 9y ago
  This is a really problem with some specific topics like copyright, where the terms were invented for propaganda. We really need a better word than "piracy".
mistermann 9y ago
> be upfront about how willing you are to be wrong / change your mind (I phrase this as "what would have to be true for you to accept I am right" and vice versa for my beliefs). This would often be a highly productive way to start the discussion, because very often the situation is that one side or the other is vehemently not willing to have their mind changed, which I'd argue is the case with most arguments you'll see on Facebook or Reddit.
woodandsteel 9y ago
* agree on the meaning of the words you use. Agreed, this is very important. One way to handle it when the two of you have different meanings for a word is to keep using the word, but add a different qualifier in front for each meaning, i.e. logical proof versus empirical proof.

Mithaldu 9y ago

> debate The last time i had a conversation with an american trained in "debate", it was quickly obvious that reality and truth were the last thing on his mind, but scoring rethoric points was the first. The rest of your points are good, but i think if you start it out with the word debate, many americans are going to mentally short-circuit to that style of conflict, instead of "respectful conversation".

_dps 9y ago
I haven't found any nationality to have exclusive rights to turning civil debate into a partisan shouting match. But I agree that some people do have that tendency. Still, such people seem even less likely to be productive if they approach the situation as open conflict — hence the advice to reframe conflict as debate, not to insert debate where it is otherwise unnecessary.
- Mithaldu 9y ago
  > nationality I mention it specifically because, in all the nationalities i have talked to, i.e. in my personal experience, the USA is the only one to have a high school debate club culture that's widely spread.
  - _dps 9y ago
    At a minimum, I personally know of active school/university debate societies in the United Kingdom and Australia. And while it sounds like you've had some bad experiences, my personal sense is that the majority of people with formal debate experience are actually better, on average, at staying within the bounds of civil discourse. Having said that, there is indeed an overly aggressive subset of the population that is, as I think you're suggesting, attracted to debate for all the wrong reasons. But based on the literally hundreds I've met, I'd say as a population they are on average more civil and more likely to follow norms of "fair argument". They are much more likely to aspire to be erudite policy wonks than to be angry talk show pundits. YMMV obviously.
    - 9y ago

fallous 9y ago

Note that being comfortable with differing opinions and being comfortable with certain forms of creative debate are two different things. A debate should be a voluntary contest between parties and is only possible if they both share and agree upon a base set of principles as the foundation for the debate. If an atheist and a theist "debate" the existence of God(s) it isn't a resolvable argument since their divergence of principles is at a fundamental level and the only thing they share are certain derived points that accidentally coincide. In this case the parties must either be comfortable with the fact that they differ in opinions or they are not. This does beg the question as to when one should be comfortable with a differing opinion. I suspect that those who have encountered real conflict having a larger comfort area for differences due to their understanding that conflict invites real costs. In the case where legitimate debate can occur, the rules I usually try and follow/enforce are: 1. Establish the goal all parties wish to achieve (i.e., define success). 2. Establish the point at where our agreement on methods diverged. 3. All ideas should be orphans in that they have no privileges purely due to parentage. 4. Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence or ignorance. 5. Be ruthlessly honest about your own position, to include disclosing the weaknesses you know or suspect as well as disclosing the strengths of the opposing position (especially if the parties holding that position do not know it or present it themselves). Personally I become uncomfortable when there is unanimous agreement on positions I know to be legitimately debatable, even if I hold that position. In those instances I will promptly switch sides and argue against my own position to insure it has been properly vetted. In my experience the point that most reliably invites emotional response is failure of #3 since it's hard to move from "my idea" to "the idea." The most insidious failure is at #1 due to either misunderstanding or dishonesty since it corrupts the entire effort but can be very difficult to discover.

andromeduck 9y ago
Debate isn't always about changing the opinion of the person you're debating with. You can debate to win the audience.
- DoreenMichele 9y ago
  The best debates aren't about winning at all. They are about getting at the truth and broadening your understanding of a topic by exposing yourself to different points of view which can cast light on personal blind spots or holes in your knowledge.

bayonetz 9y ago

Good points though the term debate has become a dirty word to me. I frame it as preferring "dialogue" over "debate" where dialogue refers the kind of exchange you laid out and debate is more of a conflict or competition where the aim is to win rather than advance truth. That's why it's so important to be transparent about your goals and values in an exchange. It's frustrating to let your guard down for a dialogue and find out via blindside that the asshole on the other side of the table only knows how to debate.

_dps 9y ago
If you're just talking about how one word or another primes people's behavior I have no quibble; in fact I may even support such a substitution in some cases. But I think you are too harsh on the idea of winning as inherently bad. If you are a saint and your opponent is a nazi, you fundamentally disagree on what the truth is. The way you advance truth is by winning (i.e. persuading an audience, or perhaps even your opponent, that your views are correct). I agree that in general it's best to avoid zero-sum framing. But some ideas are simply incompatible with other ideas, and in those cases the pursuit of truth is inextricably tied to winning a contest.
- bayonetz 9y ago
  In my experience, there isn't a whole lot of "winning" in scenarios of fundamental disagreement. Sides just dig in and entrench. Not much to be done there I think. My debate vs dialogue distinction is more about the priming of behavior, as you call it, in the more common scenarios that are well short of fundamental disagreement -- scenarios at risk of turning in to a contest instead of maintaining the spirit of a mutual truth expedition.
  - iovrthoughtthis 9y ago
    "Winning" is hardly ever productive.
nine_k 9y ago
The problem is that a "debate" where winning is the aim and truth is not are pretty common. Certain exposure to them, understanding their basic mechanics, and the skill of telling them from a truth-seeking "dialog", would be valuable for kids. It's important for the same reason why understanding cognitive biases is important.

davesque 9y ago

"Argue as if you're right but listen as if you're wrong." How about arguing and listening as if you know exactly as much as you do and nothing more? It's not hard to imagine a case in which both arguing "as if you're right" and listening "as if you're wrong" would be inappropriate or down right foolish.

woodandsteel 9y ago

>• Argue as if you’re right but listen as if you’re wrong. On the listening side, something that often helps is what is often called active listening. This is where you say back to the person what you think they are saying, and they agree you got it right or correct it until you do. It is amazing how this can often lower the emotional level and make the disagreement more productive.